Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Gun Control and your stance

I am curious to know where people on this forum stand on the current controversy of guns. As far as I can see, there is a large group of people who are trying to ban the ownership of a specific gun: The AR-15.

I am of the mind that banning any gun will not have an effect on mass shootings. They will still occur because the people who are intent on killing others will find other ways to do so. Making laws for people who don't follow laws is idiotic. It makes no sense at all. I believe if you ban the AR-15, these disturbed individuals will find other methods to commit mass murder because they are disturbed and they wish to take life (for whatever the reason). I know this is a slippery slope argument, but I do worry about what will be banned after the AR-15. What is to stop the rest of the firearms from being banned for "safety reasons"? After that, how many other constitutional rights will we revoke?

I mention this slippery slope argument not to pick a fight with anyone but because I am genuinely worried about it. How does everyone feel about this?

It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Re: Gun Control and your stance

I am in agreement with you on this. The biggest problem with targeting the ar-15, is that it isn't the major problem in regards to shooting, hand guns are. So such a ban wouldn't really be effective. Also there is a problem with the reasoning as far as any actual application. What makes an AR-15 an AR-15 are some basic gun features that are shared by a huge range of weapons.

Re: Gun Control and your stance

Second what MT is saying. One of the major issues is that we have people who legitimately and genuinely want to change something, but they really haven't done any of the research needed to understand the issue (and not a small portion of them refuse to do it). It is a lot like people who are concerned about the trade deficit, but really have no idea what it is.

The AR-15, or even assualt rifles are terms that don't really mean anything, and specifically don't mean anything related to the goals that those who are focused on mass shootings want to achieve. I would disagree with MT (sort of) in highlighting that AR-15s aren't a major part of gun violence. Of course he is right that they are a tiny portion, but I don't think most people really care about gun violence. They care about mass shootings on the news. AR-15s are still a tiny, tiny portion of that as well, but they loom large in the public psyche of mass shootings.

"Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton

Re: Gun Control and your stance

I'm pretty much on the pro-gun rights side of such issues but regardless, it should be acknowledged that shooting up a place with an AR-15 vs a handgun will likely yield different results as in there will be more people shot with AR-15.

So whether "it will make a difference" is pretty much dependent on what "difference" one is referring to. It likely won't make a difference in whether a school shooting happens but assuming we effectively prevent a shooter getting more effective weapons, it should lower the body count when such shootings do occur.

But I agree that it likely won't effect the problem of school shootings occurring. It's better if there are five fatalities instead of fifteen, but we still got a problem.

Re: Gun Control and your stance

Originally Posted by ladykrimson

I am of the mind that banning any gun will not have an effect on mass shootings.

There are real-world examples of just the opposite. Case-in-point: Australia. In response to the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the Australian government enacted major gun control legislation that put tight controls on all types of firearm and effectively banned semi-automatic rifles. In the 20 years since the enactment of this legislation, no mass shootings have occurred, and the decline in gun violence has (which was already on the decline) accelerated.

Additionally, the United States has the 31st highest rate of gun violence, which is abysmal considering most of the countries that rank above the US in this statistic are poor, developing countries. In most of the other first-world countries, strict controls and bans on semi-automatic rifles (including AR-15s) are in place and such countries have drastically lower rates of gun violence.

Originally Posted by Squatch

One of the major issues is that we have people who legitimately and genuinely want to change something, but they really haven't done any of the research needed to understand the issue (and not a small portion of them refuse to do it). It is a lot like people who are concerned about the trade deficit, but really have no idea what it is.

It probably doesn't help that thanks to the Dickey Amendment, no publicly-funded efforts to research the impacts of gun control on gun violence are allowed.

Re: Gun Control and your stance

Originally Posted by mican333

I'm pretty much on the pro-gun rights side of such issues but regardless, it should be acknowledged that shooting up a place with an AR-15 vs a handgun will likely yield different results as in there will be more people shot with AR-15.

I understand the gut intuition of this, but it really isn't the case. There is a reason we don't use AR15s for close quarters combat in the military. A 9mm pistol with an extended magazine is just as effective if you are shooting unarmed, and unarmored victims. It is also fare more maneuverable, and in this scenario, probably more deadly. It is also more susceptible to being grabbed or the person being tackled in a building setting than a pistol. I think from an analytic point of view this concern breaks down, but I get why people think it is the case.

"Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton

Re: Gun Control and your stance

Originally Posted by Squatch347

I understand the gut intuition of this, but it really isn't the case. There is a reason we don't use AR15s for close quarters combat in the military. A 9mm pistol with an extended magazine is just as effective if you are shooting unarmed, and unarmored victims. It is also fare more maneuverable, and in this scenario, probably more deadly. It is also more susceptible to being grabbed or the person being tackled in a building setting than a pistol. I think from an analytic point of view this concern breaks down, but I get why people think it is the case.

Which gun would you use if you wanted to kill as many people in a crowded square as you could in the shortest time possible?

I'm presuming you want a large magazine (to maximize the number or rounds you can shoot), very good penetration (so you can hurt multiple people with each shot), and a high rate of fire (to kill more people in less time). I know that is not a normal military objective, but it is the objective of someone who simply want's to rack up a body count.

If I had a contest, who can kill the most people in a crowded movie theater, who would win, you with a 9mil pistol or you with an AR15?

People have a fairly basic right to self-defense. Guns can be an effective means to defend yourself in the right situation. Therefore I respect the basic right of the second amendment. (Though I don't think that was really what it was designed for.)

I do think there can be reasonable restrictions on that right, ones that do not limit your ability to defend yourself but do limit your ability to use guns as a tool for mass murder.

I also think these types of restrictions would only have a marginal effect on gun violence in the US, though it would have some effect.

I think individuals should very carefully consider whether they should own a gun and that most people who do own a gun own one for dumb reasons. Statistically, owning a gun makes you more likely to die than not-owning a gun. That is because people often use guns to kill themselves, an action from which there is no turning back. (as where other methods of suiside have a much lower "success" rate) The second most likely way a gun kills is that you use it to shoot your wife and/or children when you get angry enough. Those are the statistics. While some do use guns to actually protect their lives, many more use them to end their lives.

I think the mass shootings are a cultural phenomena. The dominant fantasy for what you do when you feel hopeless and utterly alienated from society. You go out in a violent rage and kill as many people as you can. We need to consider why that is, and as a society discourage that kind of thinking.

also, it's not like Australia had a lot of mass shootings before the law was passed to take the guns.

Originally Posted by FRUEND

Additionally, the United States has the 31st highest rate of gun violence, which is abysmal considering most of the countries that rank above the US in this statistic are poor, developing countries. In most of the other first-world countries, strict controls and bans on semi-automatic rifles (including AR-15s) are in place and such countries have drastically lower rates of gun violence.

Does that include suicides? Because I'm not interested in stopping gun suicide rates through making guns illegal. It's always unclear when suicides are included in the number, and I think it confuses the issue because the real concern is about mass shootings and such.

Originally Posted by SIG

While some do use guns to actually protect their lives, many more use them to end their lives.

I would challenge this as true, because "using" a gun could be simply letting an attacker know you have one.. and then there is no incident when there would have been. Highly unreported event to be sure.. but it happens. And I think it happens more than people kill themselves or their family. So, I don't think the statement is true or should be accepted at face value.

also, it's not like Australia had a lot of mass shootings before the law was passed to take the guns.

In the source provided, the threshold for a shooting to be considered a mass shooting was 5 or more victims (not including the perpetrator). Also according to the study, Australia had 13 mass shootings in the 18 years leading up to the 1996 reform. I guess by comparison it certainly isn't that much, given that in the US since 2006 there have been 109 mass shootings (defined in the same manner as the study above).

Or perhaps we should consider it for the tragedy that it is, and a national embarrassment.

Originally Posted by MindTrap

Does that include suicides? Because I'm not interested in stopping gun suicide rates through making guns illegal. It's always unclear when suicides are included in the number, and I think it confuses the issue because the real concern is about mass shootings and such.

First, gun control does not necessarily equate to "making guns illegal". Second, the statistics "exclude deaths from armed conflict and from accidents or self-harm", which means that if you did include suicides it would be even worse.

Re: Gun Control and your stance

Originally Posted by FREUND

In the source provided, the threshold for a shooting to be considered a mass shooting was 5 or more victims (not including the perpetrator). Also according to the study, Australia had 13 mass shootings in the 18 years leading up to the 1996 reform. I guess by comparison it certainly isn't that much, given that in the US since 2006 there have been 109 mass shootings (defined in the same manner as the study above).

Or perhaps we should consider it for the tragedy that it is, and a national embarrassment.

The source you linked too has what appears to be mostly 4 in the victims column.

I'm not saying it's not a tragedy. I'm just saying that your sources are over stating or under stating the evidence.

Originally Posted by FREUND

First, gun control does not necessarily equate to "making guns illegal". Second, the statistics "exclude deaths from armed conflict and from accidents or self-harm", which means that if you did include suicides it would be even worse.

Well, given that so far as much as I can tell your sources have fudged the numbers... I'm not sure.

That all said it is a problem and if there was a law we could pass that would effect it then we should talk about it.
so it seems to me that most "mass" shootings can be accomplished with a typical hand gun and not reloading at all. As the vast majority seem to be Family killings of less than 6 people. (that is here in America and from your last source, and my impression of it).
..So what is going to effect that?

Re: Gun Control and your stance

Just a disclaimer, the first half of this post is a clinical assessment of tools and can come off as insensitive. I don't mean it to be, but rather an assessment of the relative danger of different types of firearms.

Originally Posted by Sigfried

Which gun would you use if you wanted to kill as many people in a crowded square as you could in the shortest time possible?

It somewhat depends on where you are. If, like in the Vegas scenario, you are in an elevated platform, the AR 15 is a pretty effective weapon, though the bumpstock reduces its effectivness (causes the weapon to malfunction quickly and prevents any kind of aiming). If I was at ground level, a pistol would be far more effective (an SBR or SMG would be even more effective, but are incredibly hard to get). Anything like an AR15 would present too much of a signature and is far too likely to be grabbed or bumped or otherwise removed from the shooter.

In the most common scenario, an CQB (close quarter battle) scenario inside a building, again an AR15 is far, far too long to maneuver around doors and walls. It is more likely to be grabbed or you are more likely to be tackled and be unable to respond. A pistol would be far more effective.

Originally Posted by Sig

I'm presuming you want a large magazine (to maximize the number or rounds you can shoot), very good penetration (so you can hurt multiple people with each shot), and a high rate of fire (to kill more people in less time). I know that is not a normal military objective, but it is the objective of someone who simply want's to rack up a body count.

1) Large magazine. To a very limited extent. A twenty round magazine on a pistol is fine, a thirty round is likely to have performance issues. Remember that it is a spring pushing those rounds into the weapon, and springs don't apply even pressure. Likely, you would want a large number of magazines rather than a large capacity magazine.

2) Penetration. Actually the opposite. The pass through effect doesn't really happen in modern combat situations absent things like steel core penetrator rounds, and even then it is more likely to spin off in the sky or slam into the dirt given common deflection patterns within a body, than hit a second person. I would say you want the opposite, a higher caliber round with stopping power. It is more likely to kill a person (especially in the US with our excellent ER centers) and more likely to stop someone trying to stop me. What is more important is your ability to engage a target, which means you need a weapon you can handle, for most people (myself included) that means a 9MM.

3) High rate of fire. Again, to some extent. Fully automatic weapons like the M240 or M249 are meant for engaging groups of people at long distances. Their effectiveness at close range is extremely limited. They end up putting too many rounds into a single person. All semi-automatics have the same rate of fire, and again, your ability to aim is far more important than rate of fire. Bump stocks increase the rate of fire slightly (though not as much as one would think), but tend to exceed the weapons ability to vent heat and cause them to catastrophically jam.

Originally Posted by Sig

If I had a contest, who can kill the most people in a crowded movie theater, who would win, you with a 9mil pistol or you with an AR15?

I think the determining factor wouldn't be the weapon, it would be the people. I don't really see the AR15 winning in any scenario though. If they rush me, the 9MM is by far the better weapon because of its smaller size (harder to get inside firing arc, grab, etc). If they don't, I can still carry more ammo for a 9MM than an AR15 and reloads are equally fast.

I think my bottom line is that the weapon (largely) isn't really as critical as the shooter and the victim's responses.

Originally Posted by Sig

People have a fairly basic right to self-defense. Guns can be an effective means to defend yourself in the right situation. Therefore I respect the basic right of the second amendment. (Though I don't think that was really what it was designed for.)

Just to clarify, I think you mean here a right to self defense against other private individuals?

Originally Posted by Sig

I think individuals should very carefully consider whether they should own a gun and that most people who do own a gun own one for dumb reasons.

Totally agree with this sentiment. And the normal lack of familiarity with the weapon that comes from a dumb reason.

Originally Posted by Sig

That is because people often use guns to kill themselves, an action from which there is no turning back. (as where other methods of suiside have a much lower "success" rate)

Just to be fair, there is a lot of debate on this topic. In the US secondary methods are far less successful, likely because they are probably meant to be a cry for help than a serious attempt. In Australia and the UK following their bans, gun suicides dropped to nearly zero, but overall suicide death rates remained unchanged. I'm not sure the data supports that the tool is nearly as relevant as is implied here.

Originally Posted by Sig

The second most likely way a gun kills is that you use it to shoot your wife and/or children when you get angry enough.

I don't think the stats, at least in the US bear this out either. The most common use for a gun bar none is defensive use against another person. That number dwarfs (even in its conservative estimates) any other usage. I do think you were limiting to just justifiable homicides, and unfortunately no one (that I'm aware of) collects that data officially.

I think though that really the next most likely scenario where a gun is used to kill someone is if you are a young black man involved in a gang. A staggeringly high percentage of gun violence is related to gang activity.

I really think Sig, that you are and I are probably more in agreement than not that the issue is a cultural and societal one rather than a technological one. There are certainly reforms we could do in the justice system to marginally reduce that number, but tackling the underlying cause is probably the only real think that can be effective if we really want to make a difference in gun violence.

It is a horrifying fact that if you take the gun violence level for the rest of the US and apply it to those gang related homicides, our gun homicide rate drops to about the lower half of Europe's.

Originally Posted by Sig

I think the mass shootings are a cultural phenomena. The dominant fantasy for what you do when you feel hopeless and utterly alienated from society. You go out in a violent rage and kill as many people as you can. We need to consider why that is, and as a society discourage that kind of thinking.

Totally agree with this. Europe also has mass shootings, though they don't cover them due (if I recall correctly) to journalism ethics rules, which tends to reduce that cultural idea. There is definitely something to the notion that this idea was "unleashed" after Columbine and has now become a "solution" for these people. I doubt we can put the idea genie back in the bottle, and obviously cultural norms aren't going to solve that problem either. I do like David French's restraining order idea as a stop gap, but fundamentally we need to address the 'why' this idea has power with them to solve it.

Originally Posted by Freund

Also according to the study, Australia had 13 mass shootings in the 18 years leading up to the 1996 reform. I guess by comparison it certainly isn't that much, given that in the US since 2006 there have been 109 mass shootings (defined in the same manner as the study above).

Australia has a population of something like 26 million people. The US population is 323 million. That means we should have had 162 mass shootings rather than the 109 based on our relative population size. So if anything, we are doing better than the Australian average?

I also think we need to remember that the Australian ban only confiscated something like 20-25% of the firearms in Australia. It really wasn't a confiscation in the sense we like to think of one. That also means that it is hard to really explain anything about their change (or more accurately lack of change) in violence statistics.

"Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton

Re: Gun Control and your stance

The source you linked too has what appears to be mostly 4 in the victims column.

Which source are you referring to? I had multiple sources.

Originally Posted by ”Mindtrap”

Well, given that so far as much as I can tell your sources have fudged the numbers... I'm not sure.

I would be happy to delve into this assertion if you could point out which source per the above request.

Originally Posted by ”Mindtrap”

That all said it is a problem and if there was a law we could pass that would effect it then we should talk about it.
so it seems to me that most "mass" shootings can be accomplished with a typical hand gun and not reloading at all. As the vast majority seem to be Family killings of less than 6 people. (that is here in America and from your last source, and my impression of it).
..So what is going to effect that?

A federal, digital firearms registry is one example of a common sense approach to gun control. Some of the biggest issues we have seen in these mass shootings and other events of the like has been failures with the system of tracking/selling firearms and keeping owners and sellers of guns accountable for their actions. The existence of loopholes (such as between private sellers) as well as the lack of regulation of existing licensing records (such as a requirement to digitize records as the government did with HIPAA and medical records) make the reasonable control of firearms almost unmanageable. As a result, federal and state agencies have breakdowns in communication that result in perpetrators of these acts falling through the cracks.

The above, when coupled with a mandatory gun registration requirement, would go a long way to ensuring that there is a means by which federal and state agencies can jointly and cohesively monitor and regulate the use of firearms, much as is done with motor vehicles.

Originally Posted by ”Squatch”

Australia has a population of something like 26 million people. The US population is 323 million. That means we should have had 162 mass shootings rather than the 109 based on our relative population size. So if anything, we are doing better than the Australian average?

The point I was trying to make was to simply counter the assertion that Australia didn’t have “a lot of mass shootings” before the gun reform in 1996.

In the study I mentioned, the gun violence is measured in terms of deaths per 100,000. For comparison, in 2016 the United States had 3.85 deaths per 100,000 whereas Australia had 0.2 deaths per 100,000, which means that the US has a rate that is almost 20x higher.

Originally Posted by ”Squatch”

I also think we need to remember that the Australian ban only confiscated something like 20-25% of the firearms in Australia. It really wasn't a confiscation in the sense we like to think of one. That also means that it is hard to really explain anything about their change (or more accurately lack of change) in violence statistics.

Can you go into more detail as to why this is the case?

Originally Posted by ”Squatch”

It is a horrifying fact that if you take the gun violence level for the rest of the US and apply it to those gang related homicides, our gun homicide rate drops to about the lower half of Europe's.

I can’t find this information in the links you provided. Can you elaborate on this?

The link doesn't allow for selection of less than 4, and the vast majority of the shootings listed seem to be in the 4 death range.

Meaning, that my point that the "zero" number used for Australian deaths is supported by your link. IE that it is incorrect.

I don't want this objection to get in the way of a more significant point that I learned from your link.
Namely that the number of "mass shootings" is by far filled with family homicide suicides. there are in fact very few shootings with more than 6 victims by comparison.. and apparently very few mass shootings that is not created by someone killing their family.

This means that the gun legislation offered is simply not going to address the problem in anyway.

Originally Posted by FRUEND

A federal, digital firearms registry is one example of a common sense approach to gun control. Some of the biggest issues we have seen in these mass shootings and other events of the like has been failures with the system of tracking/selling firearms and keeping owners and sellers of guns accountable for their actions.

This doesn't seem to be true at all. Knowing where the gun was or who owned it wouldn't have prevented a single mass shooting that I am aware of. I see no purpose for such a gun registry other than for eventual gun confiscation.

The link you referenced is for the US only, and when you adjust the slider to five victims, it provides a statistical equivalent to the Australian study. This is why I referenced it. I don't understand your argument regarding how the study is incorrect--can you elaborate?

Originally Posted by MindTrap

I don't want this objection to get in the way of a more significant point that I learned from your link.
Namely that the number of "mass shootings" is by far filled with family homicide suicides. there are in fact very few shootings with more than 6 victims by comparison.. and apparently very few mass shootings that is not created by someone killing their family.

What I don't understand about your perspective is why the type of mass shooting (family vs. other) even matters. I likewise disagree that there are "very few" mass shootings with greater than 6 victims, as there have been 50 such incidents in the US since 2006, 34 of which not being a family homicide scenario.

Originally Posted by MindTrap

This means that the gun legislation offered is simply not going to address the problem in anyway.

Again, the Australian example shows that there was a decline in mass shootings after implementing stricter gun regulations. Unless you have a counter example to show that it does not statistically reduce the number of incidents, your assertion isn't very convincing.

Originally Posted by MindTrap

This doesn't seem to be true at all. Knowing where the gun was or who owned it wouldn't have prevented a single mass shooting that I am aware of. I see no purpose for such a gun registry other than for eventual gun confiscation.

What basis do you have for this assertion? Gun violence is far less prevalent in nations with stricter controls and registration requirements, which suggests that these kinds of systems are effective.

Re: Gun Control and your stance

Originally Posted by Freund

Gun violence is far less prevalent in nations with stricter controls and registration requirements, which suggests that these kinds of systems are effective.

Correlation does not always equal causation. Per Sig's comment about the cultural aspect, how can you be sure that there isn't a deeper cultural characteristic which increases a nation's members' acceptance for enacting stricter regulations and likewise decreases that nation's members' potential for gun violence, meaning the lower violence isn't a direct result of the stricter regulations?

Re: Gun Control and your stance

Originally Posted by Freund

The point I was trying to make was to simply counter the assertion that Australia didn’t have “a lot of mass shootings” before the gun reform in 1996.

In the study I mentioned, the gun violence is measured in terms of deaths per 100,000. For comparison, in 2016 the United States had 3.85 deaths per 100,000 whereas Australia had 0.2 deaths per 100,000, which means that the US has a rate that is almost 20x higher.

Ahh, perhaps I misunderstood your point then. We could also apply that same reasoning to your second point here. Australia only had a 2/100,000 homicide rate in 1995 (pre-ban) While we had an 8.2/100,000 rate in 1995. They've always had a per capita lower murder rate than the US, and if we look at the rate of drop pre and post ban, it doesn't really seem to change (if anything it slows slightly, but so did ours).

Originally Posted by Freund

Can you go into more detail as to why this is the case?

I'm assuming you mean why only 20-25% were confiscated? Australia proposed a somewhat novel solution. They outlawed import and manufacture of a bevy of types of weapons. They also instituted a mandatory registration system. Finally, the created a national buy-back program rather than pure confisciation. Of course, the buy back program was "mandatory" but it was only loosely enforced. Police were not conducting house to house searches for weapons nor actively surveiling/collecting information about owners.

Thus, the law's confiscation rates were based primarily on the willingness of Australians to comply. 20-25% is actually a pretty high number given that set of details. In the US there have been some similar laws (Connecticut, California, New York, Oregon I think) banning certain types of weapons (or usually weapons with certain accessories) and requiring a buy back for already existing weapons. Those programs have, as I understand it, incredibly low compliance rates. Connecticut, for example saw incredibly low compliance for its "assualt weapon registration law" and if we move past the deadline essentially no new or existing weapons have been registered, even though there are likely more weapons in the state now than previously. New York's version obtained even lower compliance, getting only 23K registrations out of probably somewhere north of 1 million rifles (New York's definition of "Assault weapon" is pretty ludicrously broad). That's a 2% compliance rate.

I can't imagine that percentage being substantially higher in the South of Mid-West, and would probably be dramatically lower if the requirement was to actually turn them in rather than simply register them.

Originally Posted by Freund

I can’t find this information in the links you provided. Can you elaborate on this?

No worries, I didn't provide direct evidence for it because I was talking to Sig. Sig has a pretty good breadth of knowledge and usually only asks for support for small amounts of information.

The Gang related homicide rate is not, of course, a formally reported number given the fluidity of gang membership, poor data quality, and inability to prove membership in a gang. However, detailed analysis of gang-homicide rates in St. Louis showed that homicide rates within that city were 1000 times higher than the US population (IE something like 3860 per 100,000. Obviously there aren't anything like 100,000 gang members in STL though). A wider study with a somewhat smaller sample (99 family groups) found a rate about 575 times greater than the US population. These numbers are clearly skewed high because they are solely representing urban gangs. I'll mitigate that in the population discussion.

The mean average for Europe is 2.97 (22,000 (ibid) for 739 million). This is not exactly an apples to apples comparison as Intentional Homicides in Europe is closer to our Murder rate than Homicide rate.

Doing some fun math, in order to get to the 2.97 level we would need to eliminate something like 8467 (17,793-(2.97*3140)) homicides.

There are something like 900,000 to 1 million gang members in the United States. (I took the 1.4M number reported and took out prison gangs since I don't think thier homicide rates are generally counted for in the above and aren't relevant to our discussion. I'm happy to add them, given the math it makes this even more compelling). As mentioned earlier we also need to confine this to urban gangs since I don't have homicide rates for rural gang members. If I remove out the non-urban gang members, this membership drops to about 500-600 thousand.

Given that population, the corresponding drop in violence levels in gangs to eliminate the 8467 homicides above is something like a drop to only 438 times as violent as the US population (8467 homicides/ 5 (number of 100,000s in gang pop)/ 3.86 (average US homicide rate).

Or to say it another way, if I apply the non-gang related homicide rate to the entire population I get something around 2.1/100,000.

There is quite a bit of math above, please let me know if I wasn't clear.

A related argument that is easier to follow, though not as logically valid relates to race. I mention it here because it is commonly related on the internet;

The African American murder rate is 6.155/100k (2491/404.75 (their makeup of the US population))

The White murder rate is 1.197/100k (3005/2510.7 (their share of the US population)).

If we apply that White murder rate to the whole US population we are well into the bottom half of Europe.

"Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton

Re: Gun Control and your stance

Originally Posted by Squatch

Ahh, perhaps I misunderstood your point then. We could also apply that same reasoning to your second point here. Australia only had a 2/100,000 homicide rate in 1995 (pre-ban) While we had an 8.2/100,000 rate in 1995. They've always had a per capita lower murder rate than the US, and if we look at the rate of drop pre and post ban, it doesn't really seem to change (if anything it slows slightly, but so did ours).

Fair point. From the data we cannot definitively state that the gun control legislation caused the drops. I fully admit that this is a complex issue, and that similar regulations might be more or less effective depending on the country and cultural background. I am more concerned with the lack of real progress and often obstructionist behavior in Congress on this issue, even if that meant research (see Dickey Amendment).

Originally Posted by Squatch

I'm assuming you mean why only 20-25% were confiscated? Australia proposed a somewhat novel solution. They outlawed import and manufacture of a bevy of types of weapons. They also instituted a mandatory registration system. Finally, the created a national buy-back program rather than pure confisciation. Of course, the buy back program was "mandatory" but it was only loosely enforced. Police were not conducting house to house searches for weapons nor actively surveiling/collecting information about owners. . . .

I can't imagine that percentage being substantially higher in the South of Mid-West, and would probably be dramatically lower if the requirement was to actually turn them in rather than simply register them.

Thank you for the clarification--I probably could have been clearer in the framing of the question. I was not referring to the history and logistics employed as I am familiar with that, but rather the "really hard to explain anything about the change" comment. I think this was answered in the discussion above.

Originally Posted by Squatch

No worries, I didn't provide direct evidence for it because I was talking to Sig. Sig has a pretty good breadth of knowledge and usually only asks for support for small amounts of information.

The Gang related homicide rate is not, of course, a formally reported number given the fluidity of gang membership, poor data quality, and inability to prove membership in a gang. However, detailed analysis of gang-homicide rates in St. Louis showed that homicide rates within that city were 1000 times higher than the US population (IE something like 3860 per 100,000. Obviously there aren't anything like 100,000 gang members in STL though). A wider study with a somewhat smaller sample (99 family groups) found a rate about 575 times greater than the US population. These numbers are clearly skewed high because they are solely representing urban gangs. I'll mitigate that in the population discussion.

For disclosure, I obtain both of these references from the US Office of Justice Programs.

The mean average for Europe is 2.97 (22,000 (ibid) for 739 million). This is not exactly an apples to apples comparison as Intentional Homicides in Europe is closer to our Murder rate than Homicide rate.

Doing some fun math, in order to get to the 2.97 level we would need to eliminate something like 8467 (17,793-(2.97*3140)) homicides.

There are something like 900,000 to 1 million gang members in the United States. (I took the 1.4M number reported and took out prison gangs since I don't think thier homicide rates are generally counted for in the above and aren't relevant to our discussion. I'm happy to add them, given the math it makes this even more compelling). As mentioned earlier we also need to confine this to urban gangs since I don't have homicide rates for rural gang members. If I remove out the non-urban gang members, this membership drops to about 500-600 thousand.

Given that population, the corresponding drop in violence levels in gangs to eliminate the 8467 homicides above is something like a drop to only 438 times as violent as the US population (8467 homicides/ 5 (number of 100,000s in gang pop)/ 3.86 (average US homicide rate).

Or to say it another way, if I apply the non-gang related homicide rate to the entire population I get something around 2.1/100,000.

There is quite a bit of math above, please let me know if I wasn't clear.

A related argument that is easier to follow, though not as logically valid relates to race. I mention it here because it is commonly related on the internet;

The African American murder rate is 6.155/100k (2491/404.75 (their makeup of the US population))

The White murder rate is 1.197/100k (3005/2510.7 (their share of the US population)).

If we apply that White murder rate to the whole US population we are well into the bottom half of Europe.

The 2.1/100,000 is still higher than every European country--the closest being Albania at 1.72/100,000. I likewise do not think it is reasonable to use the white murder rate as a measure of our actual violence levels--this kind of selection isn't accounted for in the European/Global models so the comparison isn't really appropriate.

Re: Gun Control and your stance

Originally Posted by Squatch347

It somewhat depends on where you are. If, like in the Vegas scenario, you are in an elevated platform, the AR 15 is a pretty effective weapon, though the bumpstock reduces its effectivness (causes the weapon to malfunction quickly and prevents any kind of aiming). If I was at ground level, a pistol would be far more effective (an SBR or SMG would be even more effective, but are incredibly hard to get). Anything like an AR15 would present too much of a signature and is far too likely to be grabbed or bumped or otherwise removed from the shooter.

It seems to me you are still thinking like a soldier, not a mass murderer (understandable as you were/are a soldier). Precise aiming isn't really a big deal when shooting at a crowd. the general area of heads and hearts is probably fine. They aren't shooting back so there is no need for a clean kill. Nor are you worried much about anyone rushing up to fight you. They are mostly going to be panicing, hiding, and running. You don't really even care if you are killed, you just want to lay down wrath upon others. You aren't maneuvering in tight spaces or peeking around doorways etc... Its not a hazard course. It's not a modern battlefield with body armor. Your goal isn't stopping power or to neuthralize enemy combatants. You just want to make as many people bleed and suffer as you can manage, and they will go down like sheep while you do it, screaming for their lives.

Though I agree an SMG might be your very best weapon for a lot of these if you up close.

I think the determining factor wouldn't be the weapon, it would be the people. I don't really see the AR15 winning in any scenario though. If they rush me, the 9MM is by far the better weapon because of its smaller size (harder to get inside firing arc, grab, etc). If they don't, I can still carry more ammo for a 9MM than an AR15 and reloads are equally fast.

That's why I used you in both situations. and for the most part, these folks aren't fighting back, they are in a dark movie theater where someone is opening fire on them. And you probably want something that will go through a theater seat and still be lethal. (not sure if a 9mil will do that or not, I'm no expert on that side of things but I'm told one of the advantages of an AR 15 is round speed and penetration.

I think my bottom line is that the weapon (largely) isn't really as critical as the shooter and the victim's responses.

I mostly agree, but the line of argument is that with legislation, we can make it somewhat more difficult to kill as many people without seriously impacting the lawful uses for fireamrs (beyond collecting and sheer amusement of course).

Just to clarify, I think you mean here a right to self-defense against other private individuals?

Correct. That was not the main intent of the 2nd ammendment, though some may have had it in mind. Some states specifically called out a right to self defense in their state constitutions. Other didn't. Some didn't have gun rights in theirs. The federalist papers specifically discuss state militia and defense agaisnt federal troops when discussing the second ammendment. That, and the language of the ammendment make it clear to me that was the primary intent of it.

Just to be fair, there is a lot of debate on this topic. In the US secondary methods are far less successful, likely because they are probably meant to be a cry for help than a serious attempt. In Australia and the UK following their bans, gun suicides dropped to nearly zero, but overall suicide death rates remained unchanged. I'm not sure the data supports that the tool is nearly as relevant as is implied here.

The right wing media will tell you that, sure, but it's not accurate. There was an increase in the year of the ban, but after that it steadily declined.
"Total suicides, including those involving firearms, increased by a mean 1 per cent per year before 1996, and then decreased by a mean 1.5 per cent per year after the gun laws were introduced.https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/th...22-gpp4wp.html

And studies have shown that owning a gun is a statistically significant risk factor in dying from suiside.
In 2014 63% of all gun deaths were suicide. Guns mostly kill their owners, not other people, that is a cold hard fact and its at a rate of almost 2:1.

I don't think the stats, at least in the US bear this out either. The most common use for a gun bar none is defensive use against another person. That number dwarfs (even in its conservative estimates) any other usage. I do think you were limiting to just justifiable homicides, and unfortunately no one (that I'm aware of) collects that data officially.

It is always self reported (use of a gun in defense). It's only my personal expereince, but... I've been threatened with a gun on at least three ocasions. In each the person was not a criminal but some person who saw me as a threat. I promise I wasn't a threat, just a big guy politely explaining to someone they did something wrong. So I take a dim view of what others think "defending themselves" is all about. I find a lot of people with guns use them as a tactic in being bullies when they are in a dispute with someone else and then tell themselves without it, they would have been in danger.

What we do have stats for (al be it not the greatest due to our horrible national reporting) are deaths from firearms.
"Parsing 2012 (fbi) numbers, the center counted 259 justifiable gun-related homicides, or incidents in which authorities ruled that killings occurred in self-defense."

So that's all times someone used a gun to actuall kill an assailent in a situation that called for the use of deadly force.

"in the same year, 8,342 criminal homicides using guns, 20,666 suicides with guns, and 548 fatal unintentional shootings, according to the FBI's Supplemental Homicide Report."

So twice as many people accidentlily shot themselves or others that killed an attacker intentionally. So while guns may be bandied about as threats fairly often, when they actuall get used to kill someone, most of the time it is suicide, most of the rest it is murder, then dumb ****s killing themselves of others by accident, and a distant trailing figure, guns actually used in lawful self defense.

Honestly, the most common actual use of guns in general is collecting, then target shooting, then hunting. Most of these pose no real danger to anyone. But when guns do pose a danger, its foremost suicide, then murder, then accidents, then defense.

I think though that really the next most likely scenario where a gun is used to kill someone is if you are a young black man involved in a gang. A staggeringly high percentage of gun violence is related to gang activity.

But that isn't part of what your gun in your home is going to be a part of. (unless you are a black gang member of freind of one). I'm talking about the gun you buy and who, if anyone it is likely to kill. It's not going to kill black gang members. It is most likely to kill someone in your family, specifically you, and after that, your spouse or children.

I talked about how often it kills criminals, but
"It analyzed 2015 homicide data collected by the FBI. It found 928 female homicide victims were "wives or intimate acquaintances of their killers."
Apparebtly about half of domensitic deaths are from guns, so lets say thats around 450 in a year. Still more than all justifiable gun homicides.

I really think Sig, that you are and I are probably more in agreement than not that the issue is a cultural and societal one rather than a technological one. There are certainly reforms we could do in the justice system to marginally reduce that number, but tackling the underlying cause is probably the only real think that can be effective if we really want to make a difference in gun violence.

Sure, but where we might part ways is that I think one of the biggest social changes we could make is to convince people not to keep a gun in their home. If people realized it was generally a bad idea to own a gun then we'd have a lot less guns and less gun deaths. Its the fantasy of using guns to defend yourself or save the lives of others, or fighting the evil government etc... that tend to lead to people to do really stupid things with guns. Same for gang bangers even. Owning a gun makes you more likely to die, not less likely. It makes you too bold, too aggressive, and gives you the means when the opportunity and motive arises.

Gang members are part of the same culture as the rest of us. A culture that beleives in the fantasy of the gun slinger as a person who is safer and more powerful than those around them who don't have guns. That mode of thinking makes everyone less safe. I'm not sure if we see eye to eye on this.

Totally agree with this. Europe also has mass shootings, though they don't cover them due (if I recall correctly) to journalism ethics rules, which tends to reduce that cultural idea. There is definitely something to the notion that this idea was "unleashed" after Columbine and has now become a "solution" for these people. I doubt we can put the idea genie back in the bottle, and obviously cultural norms aren't going to solve that problem either. I do like David French's restraining order idea as a stop gap, but fundamentally we need to address the 'why' this idea has power with them to solve it.

That part we do agree on. Again, like the second ammendment, the first ammendment poses challenges. And the first I'm pretty much a firebrand for. So it falls on all of us to try and just be responsible... tough that.

Australia has a population of something like 26 million people. The US population is 323 million. That means we should have had 162 mass shootings rather than the 109 based on our relative population size. So if anything, we are doing better than the Australian average?

Except the quote is pointing out they haven't had any since they passed their gun control regemine. (That isn't exactly true BTW, they have had mass shootings since, just not the spectacular sort the US has become famous for) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

I also think we need to remember that the Australian ban only confiscated something like 20-25% of the firearms in Australia. It really wasn't a confiscation in the sense we like to think of one. That also means that it is hard to really explain anything about their change (or more accurately lack of change) in violence statistics.

I agree it is hard to really sift through and make any hard prescriptions. It think it is clear the US lives in a kind of gun fantacy that distorts how we see things. I think that distortion happens on all sides. Mass killings are much more scary than impactful. But the idea that a gun makes you safer is also a fantasy not borne out by expereince.

The link you referenced is for the US only, and when you adjust the slider to five victims, it provides a statistical equivalent to the Australian study. This is why I referenced it. I don't understand your argument regarding how the study is incorrect--can you elaborate?

O.K. .. I see what I did, it slides both ways sorry.

My objection is that the numbers are massaged in order to draw a zero for Australia. The distinction coming from arbitrarily choosing 5 instead of 4.
My objection to the claim that there was zero mass shootings in Australia after 1996 legislation is that the link I offered listed several attacks as "mass shootings".

Which means that the point of zero is semantic more than an objective fact.

This point doesn't make your case wrong, just over stated IMO. Which is something that happens too much in the gun debate.

Lets use this minor disagreement to move to something more substantial and relevant.

What kind of Mass killings are you trying to talk about? Is it just school shootings, or public shootings?
Are we talking about gang shootings?

Is there a reason you don't want to include family killings in your argument?

Originally Posted by FREUND

What I don't understand about your perspective is why the type of mass shooting (family vs. other) even matters. I likewise disagree that there are "very few" mass shootings with greater than 6 victims, as there have been 50 such incidents in the US since 2006, 34 of which not being a family homicide scenario.

Well, the kind of shootings seem to matter in regards to what kind of law is going to address it.
For example, a family killing isn't going to be stopped by a gun registry, because for the most part family guys who lose it and kill their family probably purchased the gun legally to begin with.
We may as well be trying to stop family stabbings of the same nature, or family arson.. which apparently is a thing.

That is very different then gang shootings, which in turn are different than the kind of school shootings we have seen.

Am I wrong? Do you think that all shootings are inherently the same and can be fixed in the same way?

As to my comment of "very few" I meant in comparison to the "family" shootings in your link. This is not a knock against your point IMO.
There were 86 cases of family shootings with 4 victims. and if you include stabbings it is 105.

There were 44 family shootings with more than 4 deaths, most in the 5 to 6 range. (there were only 9 with 7 or more).

In comparison there were only 58 cases of public killings with 4 or more, and if you use 10 as the min it drops to 11

What this means, that the major problem of mass(4 or more) killings is related to family killings. I think that is relevant and won't have the same kind of fix as the 58 public killings.

If we are going to talk about the public killings (which the u.s may have all there is in all the world as far as i care), lets talk about what it will take to fix that.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Originally Posted by FREUND

Again, the Australian example shows that there was a decline in mass shootings after implementing stricter gun regulations. Unless you have a counter example to show that it does not statistically reduce the number of incidents, your assertion isn't very convincing.

Well that assumes that the law passed was the cause of the decline you are pointing too. From your own link that conclusion wasn't supported.

What basis do you have for this assertion? Gun violence is far less prevalent in nations with stricter controls and registration requirements, which suggests that these kinds of systems are effective.

Well, lets assume for a moment that your correct. The problem is what works for them may not work for us. We can see that in our own states as there are plenty of states with very strict laws that have higher rates of gun violence, then ones with less strict gun regulation.
There is also the matter of enforcement. Squatch highlights this in his participation rate example.

Finally, I don't see the mechanics that connects the law to the outcome. I mean, what about the state knowing who has what gun, prevents any of the shootings we have seen?
Guns that are stolen aren't going to be fixed by it, and guns that are purchased legally aren't going to be effected by such a law. ... So what is the law doing, because that is pretty much the extent of the possibilities.

Honestly, the most common actual use of guns in general is collecting, then target shooting, then hunting. Most of these pose no real danger to anyone. But when guns do pose a danger, its foremost suicide, then murder, then accidents, then defense.

I think this is important for perspective.

Admitting that a thing is mostly used for lawful and justified purposes means that we must justify our objection to the harm that is done by them.

It also diminishes the point you make about who is likely to be killed by your own gun. Apparently, its more likely to just sit in the case never used, then it is to be used in any kind of crime or kill anyone.

Are we going to let 58 total cases of mass shootings drive us to getting rid of the second amendment?
or is it the 8K criminal killings done with them?

By comparison how many crimes are committed in a car? (This would include drunk driving).

My point is, What is supposed to outrage me and move me to outlaw something?

I say this, because I believe that there is a cost to freedom. If we are free to drive, then there will be car crashes and death. If we are free to own pools then there will be drownings.
If we are free to own fire arms then people will kill themselves with them (so I basically don't care about those numbers at all. 1 million people could off themselves every day.. and I simply don't care in relation to my right to own a fire arm. It simply isn't a sufficient reason). People will commit crimes.

So if there is some number or percentage to lawful use that I should be outraged by.. then I think that context is important.

Otherwise, we are going to be leaning on our emotions. Like Australia after it had enough after one specific mass shooting. We could have just as easily been so offended by Jerry Springer that we voted out the first amendment.

Re: Gun Control and your stance

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

I would challenge this as true, because "using" a gun could be simply letting an attacker know you have one.. and then there is no incident when there would have been. Highly unreported event to be sure.. but it happens. And I think it happens more than people kill themselves or their family. So, I don't think the statement is true or should be accepted at face value.

What about all the times when someone uses a gun to threaten and intimidate someone else but doesn't actually use it? I'm pretty sure that is incredibly common as well.

And how many times when someone felt scared and threatened someone else with a gun, was their life actually in danger? That we don't know either.

What we do know..
Suicides are around 62% of gun deaths. Most people that die from a gun, die from their own gun.
The number of people shot and killed in self-defense is very small, less than 300 or so in a year, around a third were during a home invasion type scenario.
The number of women killed by their romantic partners is around 1000 in a typical year, about half of those were with guns.
More people are killed by accident (500 or so) than with guns that are shot in self defense (around 300).

The fact is, a gun in your home is far far far more likely to kill you or someone you love than to kill someone threatening you or someone you love. (mind you most gunds don't kill anyone)

It may make people feel safe ,but it doesn't generally make you any safer.

Admitting that a thing is mostly used for lawful and justified purposes means that we must justify our objection to the harm that is done by them.

What most people propose however are restrictions that still allow for those lawful and justified uses, but decrease their ability to be used for unlawful uses. The rebuttals to those tend to be arguments related to self-defense or defense against the government. The first being very rare in reality, and the second being strictly illegal by definition.

Cars are essential to our economy so they are deemed a necessary evil. We are constantly working to make them safer and we have a number of rules and restrictions to that end.

It also diminishes the point you make about who is likely to be killed by your own gun. Apparently, its more likely to just sit in the case never used, then it is to be used in any kind of crime or kill anyone.

I am addressing the "self-defense" justification for firearms and saying that if you want a gun to protect your life, you are likely a fool in that regard. That is a dumb reason to have a gun in most cases because it is far more likely to kill you than to kill someone threatening your life.

Are we going to let 58 total cases of mass shootings drive us to get rid of the second amendment?
or is it the 8K criminal killings done with them?

No, but we may well let us make restrictions on the type of guns that are legal to own, how they should be bought and sold, how they are registered, how they should be stored and so forth...

By comparison how many crimes are committed in a car? (This would include drunk driving).

Plenty. Many more crimes are commited while breathing air! If you have a proposal for making cars safer, by all means, such have lead to lower rates of traffic fatalities over the years.

My point is, What is supposed to outrage me and move me to outlaw something?

I never advocate outrage when making rational political decisions and especially not personal decisions.

I say this, because I believe that there is a cost to freedom. If we are free to drive, then there will be car crashes and death. If we are free to own pools then there will be drownings.
If we are free to own fire arms then people will kill themselves with them (so I basically don't care about those numbers at all. 1 million people could off themselves every day.. and I simply don't care in relation to my right to own a fire arm. It simply isn't a sufficient reason). People will commit crimes.

Why have any laws at all then? **** life right? Anachy for all!

Look, its always a balancing act. Every law should have a public purpose, and be weighed agaisnt what its costs are in treasure and liberty. But really, that's why my focus is on saying "Stop bying guns and live a safer life."

Otherwise, we are going to be leaning on our emotions. Like Australia after it had enough after one specific mass shooting. We could have just as easily been so offended by Jerry Springer that we voted out the first amendment.

Thy have a nice safer society for it. Seems like a pretty good decision from where I'm sitting.